Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Please note that I've removed your ludicrous and dismissive statement about Wal from the citation above, and more of the same is going to get you removed from the Forum.

I'm not surprised at the double-standard at play here. What you removed was in the same vein as your comment to me. Not that I'd like you to remove your comment, it serves for posterity.

No one who's taken any time to examine Wal's comments proposing an electrical underpinning of gravity at the quantum level would dream of asking the macrocosm to announce the subatomic source!

You didn't answer my questions, or even attempt to, and instead appealed to authority. This is exactly the kind of thing you guys were complaining about in Michael Shermer's piece on your conference. You could ban me censor me, do whatever you want, of course. It's your playground. Just be mindful of the hypocrisy the next time you criticize mainstream science for similar behavior.

This Forum is for discussion between people still learning what the EU means, or could mean, for science.

Good, then perhaps you, or even better Thornhill, can answer my most basic question: In his theory, is the force acting as gravity electrical or not?

David Talbott wrote:I'll take no sides on this discussion other than to affirm that Bengt is correct in saying that Thornill's concept can only be tested at the level his work addresses gravity, which means the quantum level.

Why do we need to discuss any "quantum-level" source, when the result has to be a macroscopic dipolar field?

querious wrote:
Why does a charged foil not react to Wal's dipole field?

It seems the party is almost over, with no one wanting to play your game?
It reminds me a bit of the child in the supermarket, stomping feet, screaming with flushed face, "but MUM I want a ...Lolly"

Anyway you have got me very queerious indeed about your experiment.

I wonder if you could advise.

1. What type of charge you put on your foil? Was it positive or negative?
2. Did you somehow only put charge on one side of the foil????, or opposites on each side, please describe?
3. I see you have criticised Brengt for lacking of technical substance, so I wondering in your experimental proof how you calculated the aggregate of the approx 6400 km of Wals dipoles from your lab to the centre of the Earth in order to arrive at a testable quantity of charge on your foil? What was sufficient discernable charge to effect a result? Your math of the amount of charge you applied would be most interesting!
4. What was the variance if any obtained from your foil? Did it fall at 9.8m/sec^2 and or what is the exact gravity reading at your lab? What rate of acceleration was recorded?
5. How did you eliminate the efects of the atmosphere ? Did you conduct this experiment in a vacuum to eliminate air resistance?
6. Did you perform the experiment both above the Earth surface and below (perhaps in some form of vacuum chamber)? You know there is a considerable atmospheric electric gradient from Earth (ground) upwards how did you eliminate that effect? That lightening stuff isn't falling rapidly to Earth by gravity..... you know already!!!
7. What effect predictions were you expecting to see in your experiment? Did you think the foil was going to shoot off at acceleration, reach escape velocity and head out into space?

As I say very queerious about all this.

Also I note your dedication to Mr Einsteins GR & SR. Do you not see the neo Einsteiners bowling ball on the bed sheet description of their " gravity", weight of planet curving the "space time fabic" just a bit circular in logic too ...DONT YOU THINK?

querious wrote:
Why does a charged foil not react to Wal's dipole field?

Anyway you have got me very queerious indeed about your experiment.

I wonder if you could advise.

1. What type of charge you put on your foil? Was it positive or negative?....

Hi Corpuscles,

Sadly, I haven't done an experiment myself to see if dipole gravity changes the weight of a charged foil.

I'm also assuming Wal hasn't done this simple experiment himself either, because he's at least smart enough to realize this effect has never been observed. Maybe I'm wrong - is he waiting for funding for this simple experiment?

Bottom line Corpuscles: do YOU think a neutral foil SHOULD change weight upon being charged?

chrimony wrote: Funny how many on this forum are completely skeptical of the mainstream, yet show no such skepticism to extraordinary claims of electrical phenomenon.

OK, I will try to make your day. Wall's idea of a centripetal dipole train is unsupportable if for no other reason, than because modern gravimeters will pick up even a man behind a wall along a horizontal orientation. Gravitation of Earth is not a centripetal force relative to the Earth and never has been, even though its mean vector for most practical purposes is. BTW, Cavendish setup also acts horizontally. Wallace has allowed himself to be seduced by Bohr's concept of an atom, which has never worked even theoretically [Well, except for hydrogen, somewhat, and even that somewhat is just about insignificant.]

And yet, gravitation can be understood and called an electric phenomenon. Only that it is not a dipole, never mind a mono pole phenomenon, such as most have been trained to perceive through the psychological filter of their education. Vice versa, electric dipole could be also understood as a special case of gravitation. The difference in their effects is in the structure of the causes of the two fields, not in their underlying principle and substance.

None the less, the gist of EU is IMO beyond any reasonable doubt, albeit it holds onto theoretical misconceptions adopted from the mainstream and because of that can never really be satisfactorily solved. This universe is not a digital system, but an analog system, in which no two items are ever identical, sometime inherently, but always due to conditions.

querious wrote:[... is he waiting for funding for this simple experiment?[/b]

If so, why has this effect never been seen?

The point of my somewhat bizarre post was to point out that such an experiment would be anything but SIMPLE! Rather the exact opposite !

What sort of charge are you proposing for this "foil" which is central to your oft repeated mantra?
Are you talking static? Have you in your scientific eperimentation ever stuck a static rubber balloon onto a wall?
Is your hypothetical 'foil' double layered separated by dielectric (capacitor)?

The link below is not the particular experiment I was trying to find for you, but if you search this website further then you will hopefully discover that the effect likely HAS been seen.

I agree with SDK post above (re Bohr model and limted understanding of what electricity actually is) and it is truly unfortunate if Wal invoked circular reasoning into his presentation which I have not seen.

SDK wrote: Gravitation of Earth is not a centripetal force relative to the Earth and never has been, even though its mean vector for most practical purposes is. BTW, Cavendish setup also acts horizontally.

Well put. I mentioned the Cavendish experiment earlier in this thread to make the same point.

Unfortunately a dipole both attracts and repels, so cannot simulate gravity in all directions at once. Gravity on the other hand attracts in all directions at once.

End of the little fantasy that dipole gravity might somehow actually be true.

Without doing this experiment, what is YOUR prediction, based only on your knowledge of Wal's theory and electrostatics?

Oh! it is just one of those fantasy "thought experiments" that you find simple!? Got it.

The conventional expected result depending on your nomenclature (negative?) is you will either transfer "electrons" either on or off the foil. This will add or subtract a very small amount of weight (mass)
Good luck trying to measure that.... but hey maybe that is easy/simple in your "thoughts"!

See, an electric charge by accepted definition, does change mass!

Now what if we crank up an arc welder or put it in the path of one lightning bolt (insignificant compared to the charge absorbed by Earth on a daily basis).......Pooooffff! .....Vapourised gas and smoke rising in the "container" How are we going to measure the weight of the 'foil' in this case?

FWIW I do not subscribe to any dipole only or electrostatic gravity hypothesis. (I think i ought not enunciate my favoured theory as that is probably not main board EU but rather NIAMI stuff)

My attempted contribution, was to engage you on the question you have been bleating, asking over and over again!Ad nauseum! without reply. As if.... a small charge applied in a 'thought experiment' is in any way conclusive or absolutely contradictory !?

Corpuscles wrote:FWIW I do not subscribe to any dipole only or electrostatic gravity hypothesis. (I think i ought not enunciate my favoured theory as that is probably not main board EU but rather NIAMI stuff)

Then why did you say above Wal's effect has been seen, and link to the lifters?

I guess you finally thought hard enough about Wal's dipole gravity theory to see it holds no water.

Welcome to the club.

So, does anyone on this forum who supports Wal's theory have anything to say about neutral vs charged foils?

I beg to somewhat disagree on that one. The repulsion is an old concept and I see it as unsupportable. When we observe electrostatic field of two opposite electric polarities expressed by lines of force, those lines tell us, that the two bodies are in an attractive dependency. When we look at these lines while both bodies possess the same polarity, the lines are telling us exactly the same, only that two such bodies attract in generally opposite directions toward whatever inductable material, even air (and I suspect even vacuum, but do not insist o it), in which they are able to induce their opposite polarity. Yes, there is also some mutual field deformation between their alike polarity fields, which could be interpreted as a repulsive force comparable to a "repulsive" force between two flexible bodies, say inflated balloons compressed against each other, but even that part is caused by the attraction of the field between each such body and the environment, while each of their fields is prevented to lock onto the environment in the general direction of the other body.

When it comes to lifters, contrary to what Queerious states, they do not work only in some atmosphere, producing the so called ionic wind. They work even in vacuum chambers as long, as the environment (chamber enclosure) is capable to be electrically induced. That means, that the vacuum chamber has to have some internal dielectric coating, assuming that most such chambers are made from metals and grounded. Another interesting point is, that if the lifter could be made with charged dielectric components instead of metallic and tested in a proper vacuum chamber, it should stay lifted for quite a while without any additional power supply. It is mostly, if not solely the ionic wind, which depletes the lifter static charge, requiring its continuous recharging. The ionic wind actually impedes to a degree the lifting capacity of the lifter by friction as per aerodynamics. It is not the real cause of the lifting effect. The real cause is the distortion of the say negative field of the strip by the opposite field of the wire and vice versa, reorienting part of field structure, thus attractive force, in the general direction of the wire and up as usually tested.

SDK wrote:It is mostly, if not solely the ionic wind, which depletes the lifter static charge, requiring its continuous recharging. The ionic wind actually impedes to a degree the lifting capacity of the lifter by friction as per aerodynamics. It is not the real cause of the lifting effect. The real cause is the distortion of the say negative field of the strip by the opposite field of the wire and vice versa, reorienting part of field structure, thus attractive force, in the general direction of the wire and up as usually tested.

I have no idea what you're talking about there. Could you please describe how a lifter works, if not by ion wind?

querious wrote:
Then why did you say above Wal's effect has been seen, and link to the lifters?

You misrepresent my comment. It was in reference to your silly foil "thought experiment".

I guess you finally thought hard enough about Wal's dipole gravity theory to see it holds no water.

You seem to make a habbit of guessing!

Welcome to the club.

I was unaware of any "club" and decline any invitation to be associated with your seeming destructive ambition.

So, does anyone on this forum who supports Wal's theory have anything to say about neutral vs charged foils?

You seem incapable of discussing it without obfuscating and trying to big note yourself. No wonder there were no replies!
After a long absence and infrequent visits here, I mistakenly thought you were somewhat immaturely desperately disappointed with Wal Thornhill on this issue, and had a need to clear up at least some of your own misconceptions. I now gain the impression that there is a more sinister motive. Therefore I will now desist from giving you further advertising space.

Edgar Allan Poe said something like:

By vilifying and denegrating a great man of intelligence (Thornhill) is the only way a little man of little capacity (________?) can pretend in his imagination to have attained greatness.
Cheers

querious wrote:[Do you not understand why a charged foil within a dipole field gets to the crux of the question of dipole gravity?

?

NO! Please explain in full.

How does placing a small charge on a foil, itself coming from and existing in a gravitational field, having had it's weight altered .... albeit by the "negligible amount" ....of the mass of added or subtracted electrons invalidate the hypothesis?

What would I be expected to observe (or fail to observe) as conclusive refutational evidence of the hypothesis, from your thought experiment?

Do you consider placing a small charge on a foil, flips any hypothesised dipole arrangement in such foil? If so how?

Cheers
Note as clearly previously stated, I am not defending a gravitational dipole hypothesis, but rather disputing the validity of your oft triumphantly repeated "thought experiment".